Georges Racinet wrote:

Le 11 mai 2006, à 00:36, Rob Miller a écrit :

yuppie wrote:

I still believe a refactoring as proposed here would be an improvement, it would also resolve the multiple catalogs issue:

i'm not so fond of this idea, actually. while i'm all for simplifying things, i'm loathe to give up the flexibility that you admit we'll be sacrificing. GenericSetup is likely to be used in a myriad of ways, just because we can manage to get CMF itself to work with a less flexible GenericSetup doesn't mean that other use cases won't need it. i'm especially concerned about losing the ability to have one tool's import step depend on another's.

i'm all for reducing boilerplate, though; i 100% agree that there's too much of it currently. can you imagine a way to reduce the boilerplate without sacrificing the flexibility?

Sorry. I did not mean to start that discussion again at this point. I just wanted to make sure that *if* we decide to implement that proposal the catalog support changes don't make implementing it harder.

To start the discussion again the mentioned proposal is inappropriate because it doesn't reflect the discussion that already took place. The proposal is deferred because one result of the discussion was that we need a replacement for the partial imports: An import/export tab for the tools themselves.

And this is not just about reducing boilerplate, it's also about moving to a more object orientated approach that makes new features like the import/export tab on object level easier to implement.

Hi, sorry to be late to this party, I didn't notice this proposal, but maybe was it simply because I didn't use GS at all at this time... I'll take the opportunity to mention that the two flexibility features you mention are quite important to me.

When developing with GS I rerun just one step all the time, be it for quickness or because I may be fixing a small dent while working on a bigger thing at the same time. It's also interesting when you want, say, to update a broken workflow on the fly without changing site-dependent parameters, like LDAP connections and such.

As for dependencies, it's true that the one mentionned is a bit artificial, but there are more serious ones outside of the CMF. One really needs to have portal_types set to initialize an object built on a FTI, for instance. This is of course much more serious.

I'm not sure I understand your example. After the proposed change there still will be 3 setup steps:

1.) Setting up all the tools with default (empty) settings.

2.) Importing the settings for all the tools in random order.

3.) Importing dependent import steps like content import.

AFAICS your example will work with that order. But I would be interested in learning about use cases that will not work with that order.

Finally, having the tools being exported under their true id breaks snapshots (although I'm not 100% sure if they are a feature of the GS tool itself), because of the UniqueObject inheritance, but that could be easily solved.

Yes. Snapshots are a generic GS feature. And of course we need backwards compatibility code if we change the file names. But the renaming might not be necessary.



Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to